Plefka v. Knapp, Stout & Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Transferred from St. Louis Court of Appeals. No causal connection was proved between the defect complained of and the injury sustained. The absence of the shoe on the hoister was a condition, not a cause. Wharton on Negligence [2 Ed.], sec. 85 et seq. There is no substantial evidence of the negligence charged.
1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, J.
This suit was begun by plaintiff to recover for personal injuries which he alleges was caused by the defendant’s negligently instructing and directing that he use and operate an unsafe appliance called a lumber hoister.
The answer of defendant in addition to a general denial charged plaintiff with contributory negligence in the manner of handling the machinery, and further charged, that, if the machine was defective in any particular as alleged, plaintiff knew thereof prior to and at the time he received the injury complained of and assumed the risk of working with the machine in its then…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bradley v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Devitt v. Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Fugler v. BotheSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Helfenstein v. MedartSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Lucey v. Hannibal Oil Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1895
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Murphy v. Southern Pacific Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1909
- Mullery v. Missouri & Kansas Telephone Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Parsons v. Hammond Packing Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Fischer v. City of Cape GirardeauSupreme Court of Missouri · 1939